On 8/4/2018 at 1:43 AM, kevinh said:

Now you are arguing against your own suggestion to take prepayments. As you now say, purchasing isn’t the issue, it’s downloads. Prepayment can’t improve the download bottleneck.

Think of it like this. You have 100 000 cars that need to go from Nashville to Memphis. What happens if all 100 000 cars goes at the same time? What happens if you first let 10 000 of the cars go, and release the other 90 000 cars later? How's my argument a contradiction? I have worked as a devops for 20 years, so I got some experience about load balancing.

6 hours ago, hasse29 said:

Think of it like this. You have 100 000 cars that need to go from Nashville to Memphis. What happens if all 100 000 cars goes at the same time? What happens if you first let 10 000 of the cars go, and release the other 90 000 cars later? How's my argument a contradiction? I have worked as a devops for 20 years, so I got some experience about load balancing.

You argued for prepayment to take the pressure off the servers by allowing people to pay early. You then recognised that payment is not a bottleneck compared to downloading. That’s the contradiction.

There’s no point in prepayment as it doesn’t address the issue of everyone trying to download at once. Unless you are now suggesting that prepay customers also get early access to the release, in which case most people would probably prepay and you haven’t changed anything. 

Edited August 6, 20187 yr by kevinh

Ron White

6 hours ago, hasse29 said:

Ron White

"Well apparently this guy was sick on LUGNUT DAY.."

On 7/30/2018 at 8:01 PM, Stray said:

Bit too cold and wet here in Aus, it's mid Winter !! 🌧️🌩️

I could be wrong but I suspect your concept of cold differs from mine here in Canada. 

2 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

"Well apparently this guy was sick on LUGNUT DAY.."